Knight Ridder Newspapers: Hong Kong frets new China-based laws may curb freedom of press, religion, speech

(Clearwisdom.net) Hong Kong- When the five-year anniversary of Hong Kong's return to China passed earlier this year, most observers gave Beijing passing grades for honoring its pledge to not meddle in the former British colony's internal affairs.

Some local and foreign critics grumbled about a subtle erosion of freedoms in the freewheeling capitalist enclave of 7 million people, but even they conceded that China had not intruded with a heavy hand.

Now many fear that a change for the worse may be coming. Hong Kong's Beijing-appointed chief executive is pushing for passage of anti-subversion legislation that has provoked widespread worries that long-held rights and freedoms will be undermined by Beijing's determination to silence its critics, including pro-democracy advocates and followers of the Falun Gong spiritual [group].

Critics of the legislation say it will put at risk any person or organization that offends the Chinese government in Beijing, and it will muzzle the Hong Kong press.

"What they propose threatens many of our fundamental freedoms," said Margaret Ng, a member of the Legislative Council who represents Hong Kong's 6,000 attorneys under Hong Kong's legislative system, in which some constituencies are professional groups.

The legislation, which Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa says is required under Article 23 of the Basic Law governing Hong Kong's relations with the mainland, prohibits treason, secession, sedition and subversion against China's central government. It also addresses the theft of state secrets and the political activities of foreign organizations in Hong Kong.

Ng condemns the measure as "draconian," and says it will "hit very directly at the freedom of political dissent, especially when dissent affects the central government in Beijing."

[...]

"People are less afraid of laws that have not been used in 100 years," said Ng, herself a lawyer. "But if there are new laws that are draconian, your worry is more reasonable because they are meant to be applicable. That's why these strike fear into the hearts of people in Hong Kong."

Tens of thousands of attorneys, church members, journalists, students, teachers and others last week protested against the proposed legislation in what supporters say was the biggest street demonstration in Hong Kong since British rule ended.

On Sunday, thousands of government supporters responded with a counter-demonstration and said the legislation was crucial for China's national security.

In September the government released a 62-page document outlining its proposals, but the draft legislation will not be ready before February. The government hopes for passage by July, a near certainly given its control over the largely undemocratic legislature. Critics complain that the public consultation period, which ended Tuesday, was insufficient because it concluded before the full details of the legislation were known.

Amnesty International, the Asian Human Rights Commission, Human Rights in China and the Committee to Protect Journalists have condemned Article 23.

David Li Kwok-po, the legislator for the banking sector, said at a recent American Chamber of Commerce meeting that more than 10 foreign banks from the United States, Britain, Germany, France and elsewhere had raised concerns that the proposed laws could choke the free flow of information crucial to Hong Kong's standing as a major financial center.

Cliff Bale, political editor of the publicly owned Radio Television Hong Kong and a spokesman for the Hong Kong Journalists Association, said sedition is so broadly defined it would seem to include publication or broadcast of almost anything objectionable to Beijing, including advocacy of independence for Taiwan or Tibet.

Sedition, according to the proposal released by the government in September, would include anything intending to "bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the CPG (Central People's Government) or other competent authorities of the PRC (People's Republic of China) or the HKSARG (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government)."

That and other provisions, Bale and other critics said, create a repressive link between the laws of Hong Kong and those of the mainland that could make almost any criticism of China's Communist Party dictatorship off limits. Bale noted that reporters on the mainland have been jailed for disclosing seemingly innocuous economic data.

Another provision of Article 23 would allow Hong Kong's government to ban any organization affiliated with one proscribed by the mainland authorities on national security grounds, even without an independent determination that the group poses a security threat.

Roman Catholic Bishop Joseph Zen, local leaders of the Falun Gong spiritual [group] and others fear the rights of religious groups could be harmed. China's central government has banned Falun Gong as well as Roman Catholic groups that refuse to renounce loyalty to the pope. Neither Falun Gong nor the underground Catholic Church has yet been declared a national security threat, but Article 23's critics say they could be in the future.

Surveys conducted by the Hong Kong Transition Project in August and November recorded a spike in public worry about personal freedom. In August, 68 percent of those polled said they were not concerned about personal freedom. In November, after the Article 23 proposals were released, 58 percent said they were not concerned. The percentage of respondents who said they were "very worried" about Hong Kong's political stability increased from 10 percent to 15 percent.

The underlying message is clear: Hong Kong residents are wary of the legislation because they do not trust their largely undemocratic legislature, which is perceived to be under the thumb of Beijing, said Michael DeGolyer, director of the Hong Kong Transition Project, a long-term effort to measure of effects of Hong Kong's handover to China.

Under the "one country, two systems" arrangement in which Hong Kong was returned to China, Hong Kong was promised a high degree of autonomy for 50 years. Beijing was to have jurisdiction only in national security and foreign policy. All other matters were to be decided locally.

But the deal left Beijing with an ace up its sleeve - the right to directly select Hong Kong's chief executive and to indirectly influence the selection of local legislators. Currently only 24 of the 60 legislators are chosen in direct elections. The others are picked by functional constituencies or by an election committee.

The Basic Law says Hong Kong eventually should have full democracy but provides no timetable beyond 2007, when the matter is supposed to come up for review.

Critics complain that Chief Executive Tung, a former shipping magnate who earlier this year was re-appointed to a second five-year term, has undermined democracy. They also complain that he is so eager to not offend Beijing that he sometimes exceeds its demands.

"We think the Hong Kong government is worse than Beijing," said Law Yuk-kai, director of Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, an independent rights group. "We have a perfect form of slavery that doesn't require a master."

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/world/4822972.htm